Myth and Politics

Choice: Myth and Politics

My reflection on this week’s readings will address two aspects: firstly, I will discuss the phenomenon of making choices in language as an essential point in Saussure’s theory of linguistics; secondly, I will make the claim that myth is a political concept as well as politicized speech in response to the Barthesian semiological theory put forth in Mythologies.

Even though Saussure seems to advocate a kind of determinism concerning the mechanism of meaning-production in language, arguing that the relationship between the signifier and the signified – though arbitrary – is necessary, he also allows for the freedom of choice of the individual: “When a syntagma is brought into use, we call upon associative groups in order to make our choices” (1). I find this freedom within necessity (perhaps similar in a sense to that purported by Spinoza in another context) particularly intriguing, and the tension it implies, irresolvable. That is because the range of possibilities for word choices is necessarily limited to the entries in the dictionaries. Moreover, it is highly unlikely that any human being will ever be acquainted with all of these. At the same time, words in a language are interchangeable with a limited range of other terms. Successful communication presupposes intelligent choices on behalf of the speaker and the human experience of language is exciting precisely because of the freedom it involves.

This leads me to my second point. In formulating his theory, Roland Barthes uses two key terms in association with “myth” (in the Barthesian sense of the word): “motivation” (which relates to the concept of free choice in the Saussurian theory) and “duplicity” (2). Given, therefore, that distortion for a well-defined purpose and a negotiation of power relations lie at the very heart of “myth”, I would argue that “myth” is a highly political concept as well as politicized speech – at least in a 21^st century dominated by postmodernism (3). Barthes, by contrast, claims that “myth is depoliticized speech” and that “there is at least one type of speech that is opposite to the myth: that which remains political” (4). The reason for this contradiction, nevertheless, seems to consist in a different understanding of the political. For Barthes, “a political language: (it) represents nature for me only inasmuch as I am going to transform it” (5). In my view, this is a Marxist (or post-Marxist) understanding no longer valid in a 21^st century in which postmodernism with its politics of representation dominates the political arena. Even though postmodernism arguably stands against the structuralism to which Barthes’ Mythologies subscribes, I believe that it paradoxically relies on “myth” for its success as a political concept. The photographs and advertisements that Prof. Chun showed during the lecture prove this point. Emptying one signifier of its commonly-accepted meaning and subtly investing it with another politically-determined one with the intention of naturalizing it underlie the political games with race (Senator McCain meets with local law enforcement officials), feminism (Obama photographed with the two white elderly ladies), identity, subjectivity – points high on the agenda of postmodernism. Perhaps an understanding of “myth” – of its structure and operative mechanisms – is even more important in the 21^st century than it was at the time when Barthes formulated his theory (1957).

Thus, from among the wide range of possible meanings for “myth”, this is the choice I have made: “myth” is political representation.

Notes

(1) Ferdinand Saussure, Course in General Linguistics (New York: McGraw Hill, 1966), p. 128

(2) “Motivation is necessary to the very duplicity of myth: myth plays on the analogy between meaning and form, there is no myth without motivated form” in Roland Barthes, Mythologies (New York: Hill and Wang, 1972), p.126

(3) I here refer to postmodernism as a political project comparable to socialism and liberalism, in line with Terry Eagleton’s perspective in The Illusions of postmodernism (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 1996)

(4) Roland Barthes, Mythologies (New York: Hill and Wang, 1972), p.148

(5) Roland Barthes, Mythologies (New York: Hill and Wang, 1972), p.145